Sign Up to Receive Posts

Leave This Blank:Leave This Blank Too:Do Not Change This:

Your email:

Recent Comments

MYActually, just realized you're the author of Man and Impact in the Americas. I found out about your book while working on the bibliography, but couldnt find anywhere to read it. I can't include it...

E.P. Grondineuhh Steve -
Why do you think that Greenland has always been where it is now?
Do you think that Greenland was always covered in ice?
I suppose you can look forward to leaving sunny Mexico,...

manifesto2000I've just finished reading Wally's 2013 article: "Does air capture constitute a viable backstop against a bad CO2 trip?" and I'd like to ask him if he has thought more about CO2 as a necessary...

SteveGinGTOGeorge, are you open for adding articles to this list? Or would a separate list be under consideration?
If so, I ran across the WattsUpWithThat post of March 12, 2013, entitled, "New evidence...

It is telling to read competing journal articles regarding the Younger Dryas Boundary Event. For example below is the recent paper from The Bos, et al., and below that a publication from the YDB team the year before. (I was added as an author to that one based on some field work I did years before starting this blog).

I’m sorry to keep bringing up those pesky laws of physics. They prohibit information from traveling backwards in time. We were forced to wait until after the LeCompte et al. paper had actually been written before we could read it and respond.

— Mark Boslough on the Cosmic Tusk, February 9, 2013

As I said in my reply to The Bos in the comments, this is nonsense. Having been a co-author of a couple of peer-reviewed articles and spoken with others much better published, it is no secret that it is perfectly acceptable and indeed encouraged to give the editor or publisher a call or drop them a note in order to halt or alter your text if new evidence is published. This is certainly appropriate in this instance given the paper, by their own admission, was designed to be a definitive critique that should halt research into the YDB.

Common courtesy — and scientific method it seems — would demand The Bos take a deep breath in such a circumstance, do the right thing, and address the highly detailed evidence published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shortly after his own submission, to an inferior journal, months before his final publication.

(In fact, with respect to Bunch there was even more time for The Bos to do the right thing. Bunch was published in June 2012, and LeCompte later in September 2012. But in both instances all 15 Boslough authors found it more pressing to hear the snap of the rope than the detail of the appeal.)

Moving on. Take a look at the content and tone of the papers. Bunch et al. dives deep into the nanosphere, produces extraordinary images which demand explanation, meticulously documents the composition of the materials, provides cogent narrative with data to back it up — and cites contrary findings without fear or prejudice.

The Bos takes the low road, rules it all simply impossible, calls into question the provenance of the evidence — and denies citation to over 60 pages of peer-reviewed journal articles directly relevant to his subject.

The problem as always is getting people to read the primary sources carefully using their critical thinking skills to discern the relative validity between the contributions. Give it a try: